ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143595. August 21, 2000]

FVA EX-IM TRADING, INC. vs. PEOPLE'S BLOOD BANK

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 21 2000.

G.R. No. 143595 (FVA EX-IM Trading, Inc. vs. People's Blood Bank.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court, thus declaring that the payment made by private respondent to petitioner's medical representative constituted effective payment.

The present controversy stemmed from an action for collection of sum of money filed by petitioner against private respondent. The antecedent facts is as follows:

In November 1992, private respondent placed an order of 2,000 pieces of blood bags from petitioner through a certain Christopher S. Vinson, petitioner's medical representative. On November 18, 1992, the bags were delivered to and duly received by private respondent but at a higher cost of P42.00per bag. Thereafter, private respondent placed another order with petitioner. Petitioner, however, informed respondent that the earlier order of 2,000 bags still remained unpaid. Private respondent replied that payment had already been made on November 18, 1992, the very same day the bags were delivered, in the form of BPI Check No. 397831 in the amount of P82, 000.00 payable to cash; that said check was received by petitioner's medical representative Mr. Vinson which had always been the practice by the parties; and that said check had already been encashed.

The trial court decided in favor of private respondent although it was ordered to pay the sum of P2,000.00 representing the balance remaining of the total purchase price of the subject blood bags.

Petitioner's subsequent appeal proved to be unavailing.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

The Court finds no error committed by both lower courts. In the case at bar, it is admitted that private respondent delivered the payment, in the form of a check, to petitioner's medical representative, such mode of payment being the customary practice between parties in transactions such as the one herein involved. In fact petitioner itself admitted that Mr. Vinson, its medical representative, was empowered to collect and receive payments from customers whether in cash or in check. It is clear that as far as private respondent is concerned, its payment to petitioner's medical representative extinguished its obligation. This is in accordance with Article 1240 of the New Civil Code which provides that:

Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.

Now, the responsibility of ensuring that such payment is remitted by its agent pertains solely to petitioner as the principal, not upon private respondent, the latter not being privy to the agency relationship between petitioner and its medical representative.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE